Chamby

I can’t make it up from Cornwall this year, but wishing you guys all the best for this year’s show. Phil

Oops - be careful with the latest newsletter from Rails dated 3rd November. Some of the Bachmann coaches stated as DCC, I suspect are not. Normally, with Bachmann items, if it doesn’t have DC after the catalogue number, it won’t be DCC fitted. Edit: Rails are aware and updating.

K1 has 2-cylinders whereas K3 is a 3-cylinder loco, so will sound very different. V2 might be a better alternative. P

Tony, In your model form, there looks to be either a gap in the rails or a noticeable discrepancy in rail height (maybe weight) at the join between the crossover and the siding’s catch point... looks like wheels would bump hard when travelling over it. It might be an optical illusion but it does seem to show up in several photo’s. Is it deliberate, another fastidiously modelled detail as per prototype?

Loving the D3. Re: the last picture, could you strategically place a tree on the skyline just behind the signal, to obscure the back scene boundary from this angle? Even if you only plant it for shots from this position...

I agree that traction tyres have many faults and I am not advocating their use at all! I merely used this as an illustration to the point being made abou weight. Aside from this specimen, none of my own roster has traction tyres and I avoid them purposefully. Remarkably, the 4472 concerned still has its original rubber tyres, and runs without fault (albeit a little noisily). It is the only example that I have seen like this though, and I am not at all surprised that manufacturers no longer use the feature.

Gentlemen, I find all this stuff about tractive effort and friction a little over my head, but I do think the comments about weight being everything an over simplification. The strongest locomotive I have (in terms of haulage power) is an out-of-the-box Hornby Flying Scotsman from the 1980’s, kept for posterity because it was my father’s favourite. I have had it hauling a 53 coach train (admittedly all RTR) on the flat round a full circuit with 30 inch minimum radii. It would have pulled more if the circuit had been bigger! A Bachmann 9F did not match this feat... not even close. Remarkably, said locomotive is tender drive with a ringfield motor, so it was basically just the tender pulling all these coaches as well as pushing the locomotive. Critically, the tender has traction tyres fitted, therefore significantly increasing grip on the railhead. I am sure that many of Tony’s locomotives would easily equal or exceed this feat. However it does show that there are other ways to increase haulage power than simply adding more physical weight! Phil.

Tremayne, you’ve obviously put a lot of thought and careful execution into this layout, which is as faithful to the prototype as you could achieve within the available space and the constraint of proprietary trackwork. Good job! I’ve recently made a similar decision to use Kadee’s, they are very versatile. You might want to think about how and where you’ll place the under-track uncoupling magnets before you progress much further with the track. If you’re using electromagnets, which are operationally preferable, you’ll certainly be doing a bit more hacking about under the tracks!

A quick question, if I may, about the yellow smokebox numbers: I haven’t seen this before... ?

The cheapest reliable way to turn a locomotive would be to use a wye, unless you are really stuck for space...

At the risk of incurring Sir’s wrath, I would like to point out that on my layout, the containers are seated on the conflats. So, like compensated or rigid chassis, there is more than one correct approach to the situation...

Tony, your approach to modelling might be more akin to EM/P4 philosophy, but by being built in OO gauge it immediately connects with a much wider circle of modellers. If LB was EM or P4, of course it would be at least as fine a model, but it would not ‘connect’ with such a broad section of modellers in the same way. If one of your goals was to build a high quality, inspirational model that many others might aspire to, creating LB in OO was exactly the right way to go... Although I suspect that you might not have realised it at the time! Phil.

OO gauge is intrinsically flawed as we all know, but the one big thing in its favour is the sheer number of modellers using it. EM and P4 modellers remain relatively few in number and this inevitably has a bearing on the interaction available with other modellers. I also model in a minority scale, in my case HOm, and whilst many of my colleagues admire the scale, it can be a relatively lonely place to be. The ability to share in the hobby with so many others, both friends and at club level, is what ultimately led me back to OO gauge when I retired. It is evident that Tony very much enjoys it when guest locomotives visit LB and this is greatly facilitated because there are so many OO modellers around... it almost serves as the common currency of our hobby. The EM, P4 and other more ‘true to gauge’ scales also have strong communities and their own advocates, but these are by their very nature minority groups in the overall scheme of things. I made a choice at retirement to model the more social gauge, understanding its failings, rather than follow a more purist but less prevalent gauge because for me the hobby is about more than just the models. I am a member of two local model railway clubs and they are like chalk and cheese in terms of members interests and modelling ability. But they both ‘speak’ OO, as do the vast majority of clubs nationally. Phil.

I don’t think you need a new site, the old one works well. It is my first port of call when making a new purchase because it is so much more intuitive than your competitors. Two improvements would be (1) to speed it up... the page turns are achingly slow at times, and (2) the ability to exclude all pre-owned items as a default, rather than after every search, would make things a lot easier for me.

The Internet equates that to about £62 in today’s money.

Hi Stu. From a viewing perspective, you might alternatively consider having the landform gently falling away from right back to left front, so the station is approached on a gentle embankment. The scenic break would need to be hidden by trees or a building, but overall it would open up the layout a bit more. The trackbed would only need to be raised an inch or so above the front edge of the layout to make a big difference to the viewers perspective. Also - a reminder that the Bodmin club’s annual exhibition is on 27/28th of this month. Phil

What a characterful loco, very nicely modelled. Inspiring! Phil.

It is important to recognise that people's circumstances change with time. I used to have a layout, then children arrived so the available space and funds had to be devoted to their needs. Then my career took off and I suddenly had more funds but not the time or brain capacity for modelling! Now I have retired, and have the space, time and funds for a nice layout... and my own layout room, and soon will even have a dedicated workbench! I wouldn't say that I was any less of a railway modeller when I didn't have my own layout, just that my circumstances were different. Phil.

The problem here, with the Great Model Railway Challenge, is that it’s format drives the modellers to produce themed layouts with novelty features. I felt sorry for the Missenden Modellers in the first episode, who were clearly trying to produce something akin to a quality model railway, but in the end could only achieve this by building large tranches of scenery in advance and even then they ran out of time. They were penalised for ‘cheating’ and this style of modelling was therefore portrayed critically rather than recognised as something equally valuable, albeit out of scope for the programme. I for one appreciated what they were trying to portray about our hobby, and would have liked to see them treated more sympathetically even if they did break the producer’s rules.

It is obviously light entertainment for the masses, rather than promoting serious railway modelling. The emphasis on animations and non-railway themes further drives the modelling that way. It’s like they’re trying to recreate those ‘model railways’ that you see at exhibitions that are full of houses burning down, blue flashing lights, plane crashes, even worse than that we have had Daleks and flying saucers... and military themed layouts have won both episodes broadcast so far. As for having to include a high heeled shoe in your layout, that says it all really. Shame really, I expected more than that, given the judges involved.

Geological epochs would give rise to some interesting engine names. Jurassic and Cambrian would be evocative, though I’m not so sure about Pleistocene! On the subject of hingeing baseboards, standard hinges can be used effectively, if they are positioned so that the hinge pivot is above rail level. Though the pasting table type, by fixing to the baseboard sides, does avoid intruding onto the baseboard top - useful if track clearances are tight. Again, rail gaps can be eliminated if the pivot axis is positioned above rail height, at the join.

Andrew, there will undoubtedly be various explanations for double heading on the GC, but for a while this appears to have been common practice during WCML electrification, due to extra services apparently being diverted onto the GC between Manchester/Preston and London. Locomotives were moved around to service these additional trains, with double heading being used in preference to light engines, to avoid having too many additional movements. These double headings occurred southbound as well, the 14:10 from Manchester to Marylebone being one quoted example double headed out of Leicester.

November’s BRM arrived in today’s post, with the LB 1938 feature. Some very nice photographsindeed, though I would have preferred to see more than the six featured (instead perhaps of stupid stuff like the giant plastic lobster on page 30...) I do wonder about editorial decisions sometimes! Though I have still to watch the DVD. Well done Tony Et al.

Sir has definitely left the building... has anyone received a ransome note yet?

Colin Walker’s evocative book ‘Main Line Lament’ is a good read for those interested in this subject, with an emphasis on footplate memories... He recalls a time when the Pacifics had moved back east in late ‘57 and Leicester shed was coping with a motley collection of barely serviceable engines, until the crews discovered how good 9F’s were on passenger services and ‘borrowing’ these locomotives from Woodford and Annesley became common for a while. 92164 apparently recorded 86mph between Leicester and Nottingham on a down ‘Master Cutler’, the powers that be found it necessary to impose a 60mph limit on this class to curb the Leicester driver’s enthusiasm... The reason for a clear distinction between locomotives used North and South of Leicester was because it was halfway between Manchester and London, so was set up to be the locomotive changeover point. However at times of heavy demand, they used whatever was available, and the line was renowned for unusual workings, sending locomotives far from their Home Depot, particularly on the inter-regional cross-country workings. Variety of motive power was one of the key features of the London Extension, this is both an attraction and a challenge for us railway modellers.